LITTLE ROCK, AR  The man who police say ran over and killed a teenager who stole his wallet has been charged with 1st degree murder.

The man who was driving the van is 58-year-old Michael Sadler. Little Rock Police say Sadler was cashing a check at the Asher 1 stop near the intersection of Asher and Maple. Thats when, according to police, 14-year-old Michael Stanley stole Sadlers wallet.

Stanley fled on his bicycle and was chased by Sadler. The chase ended near the intersection of 17th and Oak, about 10 blocks away. According to the arrest report, Sadler drove through several yards, ending in a vacant lot. Sadler then ran over the victim and bike with his van.

Alexander Phillips was a witness to the accident. He says he say the boy, who was on his bicycle, trying to escape the driver. The boy was riding up a hill when he fell off the bike.

"I was going to holler at him for coming through and tearing up my grass and I realized what he was doing, said Phillips.

After the boy was run over, Phillips says he saw Sadler assault the boy.

"He pulled him from under the vehicle and then he started hitting him saying 'Where's my billfold? Where's my billfold?'" says Phillips.

A great example of where a life of crime can lead a teenager. They see the wads of cash and the expensive things that drug dealers and other criminals have but not things like this. This is more representative of what happens to kids involved with crime than the MTV rappers with wads of cash and beautiful women.

2
posted on 05/04/2012 10:27:31 AM PDT
by Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")

—Why do I suspect that some of the facts of the case are being concealed?—

Same here. Based on what I read in the article, the prosecution would not want me on the jury. Not that I approve of what the guy in the van did, but based on what is in the article, I believe he had the right to do what he did.

Based on the article (hah!) I can see possibly charging the robbery victim with manslaughter. If I were on the jury, the prosecutor would have his work cut out for him ... I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt to crime victims.

8
posted on 05/04/2012 10:58:26 AM PDT
by ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)

The witness claims that the driver ran over the thief and then started yelling at him to produce his wallet. If his (premeditated) intent was to kill the boy with his car then why was he expecting any answer to his repeated questions about where his wallet was? Why would he continue to strike the boy? Did he premeditate beating the boy to death after running him over?

A good legal point, but I don’t think it would fly in court. In this case the vehicle would be seen as a deadly weapon used in a misdemeanor citizens arrest against a minor.

Comparatively, if someone snatched your wallet, then you chased after them on foot and shot them to death, it would be prosecuted as unnecessary use of force. It would be 50/50 if a police officer was chasing them, even. But an ordinary citizen, you would almost certainly lose that case.

This is different than if someone snatched your wallet and you immediately shot them.

This is actually a very hard case to prosecute, and I suspect that it has already been fouled up more than a little.

To start with, Murder 1 makes no sense in this context, unless it was a bluff to get the defendant to plead guilty for some other charge, which is very common. But the defendant is so angry that he called the bluff. But then again, prosecutors sometimes “throw” cases by overcharging, knowing that a jury will acquit, but without making the prosecutor look weak or bad.

Murder 2, Manslaughter, Vehicular Homicide, and other charges would be a lot more likely to get a conviction. But the prosecutor is probably afraid of being “Trayvon’ed” by the local agitators and media.

Personally, I think this comes under “schoolyard rules” from days of yore. If a student is picked on by a bully and then punches him out, it is a “fair exchange”. But if a student is picked on by a bully and later ambushes said bully, it is a “cheap shot”.

In this case, using a vehicle to chase the a petty thief boy was okay, but not slamming in to him. Too much force, and obviously in the heat of anger.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.